Nothing in Gnutella says that this feature needs to exist. Distributed search and distributed download work fine without it. In reality, this was always a bit of a hack to allow for things like real estate and book searches (as demonstrated in the past). These are cool and interesting but not core. The fact that what looks like a file can launch an html page has always been a bit odd. These results could always have been html or url types that the user would then recognize directly as a web page.

It is niave to think that you could just make use of this feature in wide use. Opening a browser page is just too attractive to spammers. Encouraging more spammer activity is just bad. Sorry man.

Thanks
-greg

Zlatin, our sponsored results are very upfront. They are clearly marked as "(Sponsored Results)" so users can ignore them like they do for Google AdWords.

Sam, you misunderstood my point. I was telling Greg that the only way he can ensure that some feature of LimeWire isn't used to spam is by closing off Spammers access to those features, i.e. closing the source. Feel free to add a spam filter to LimeWire - sponsored results aren't spam.

Greg, why are you excising a feature that allows artists and content creators to get paid for their labor and ingenuity? Does the Linux open source community not build imap and pop mail clients because it may open Linux users to spam?

Thanks!
Susheel

That usage if (and likely when) widely adopted by spammers could destroy our application. It has nothing to do with what it might allow if it will destroy.

If you want to support artists then promote weed files. They are perfectly suited for P2P distribution and the paying of artists.

Thanks
-greg

That's good - would you mind letting us know one of the keywords so that we can verify that?

Also, you know that these things affect dynamic querying, so even if marked they affect the user experience. All of this could have been avoided with a little coordination and communication!

If security is your concern, then the best option is to display a warning. You do the same for .exe files.

If spam is your concern, then excising the feature doesn't stop the spam. Users are already spammed by fake files, mislabeled results, etc., and I'm sure other spamming opportunities exist. Excising the html launch feature does not preclude spammers from sending bogus results.

It may be that you really have other, less virtuous concerns and that is why you want to excise the feature. I'm not sure such concerns will stand up in the face of public scrutiny though. They'll probably be viewed as anti-competitive and monopolistic, and at least adverse to your open protocol and networks mantra.

"if you can't be part of the solution, there's good money to be made prolonging the problem" -- thinkgeek demotivational calendars.

Oops - I clicked edit when I meant to click quote - can you repost pls?

This is arguable. Many people would think that any sponsored results should be complementary to whatever other people have shared on the network. Also, since those results come usually from single servers with high capacity, they should not count to the dynamic query limits.

Also, you leave no option for the user to opt-out of receiving sponsored results - something a ggep extention/flag in the query could have achieved.

Unfortunately we're all facing a done deal - and discussing what could have been done is not really productive.

Susheel,

This is not anti-competitive. It is PRO user. You've highlighted a major potential nuisance to our users. You've shown spammers how to get web pages into millions of users faces. (Okay, maybe they aren't that smart yet but they will soon likely figure it out.) I think we can safely assume that users will understand and appreciate the fact that we want to block spam.

No ill intentions on our part. We are just trying to do what's right and our users come first.

Thanks
-greg

In addition to being anti-competitive, excising the feature is reactionary.

1) You have no evidence that spammers are using it.

2) You are throwing out current *legitimate* (paying artists!) uses to guard against the potential of illegitimate uses. Perhaps you've heard of the substantial noninfringing use doctrine and the reasoning that underlies it? The feature is content agnostic and should not be excised simply because it can be used for bad ends.

3) Spam can be detected in other ways such that honest uses of the html launch can be allowed to continue.

Thanks!
Susheel

You're making a rather bold statement here. We're open to any technically sound ideas, so if feel free to enlighten us about those "other ways".